July 9, 2025 12:00 pm NEW YORK — New documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Colorado reveal further details about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) plans to expand ICE detention facilities in Colorado. The records, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the ACLU and ACLU of Colorado in April 2025, identify facilities under consideration as potential ICE detention sites in response to a Request for Information issued by ICE for facilities in the Denver area. The documents are released on the heels of congressional passage of a reconciliation bill that has allocated $45 billion to ICE to expand its immigration detention infrastructure nationwide. This amount is larger than the budget for the entire federal prison system and is estimated to allow for the detention of over 100,000 people daily. “ICE’s planned expansion of immigration detention will only serve to endanger the lives of immigrants held in dangerous and inhumane conditions, while enriching prison profiteers,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “ICE’s ability to expand immigration detention has been supercharged by recent congressional appropriations, placing immigrants in our communities at even greater risk.” The 115 pages disclosed by ICE identify six potential locations for ICE detention facilities in Colorado and also provide information regarding the history of facility use; available transport; and proximity to local hospitals, immigration courts, and legal services. Notably, many of these facilities have not been operational for several years. The facilities include: Huerfano County Correctional Center in Walsenburg, owned by CoreCivic, a private prison corporation. The facility formerly held Colorado and Arizona state prisoners, but closed in 2010, and has a capacity to hold 752 people. Cheyenne Mountain Center in Colorado Springs, owned by the GEO Group, Inc., a private prison corporation. GEO lost its contract with the facility, leading to its closure in March 2020. Hudson Correctional Facility in Hudson, owned by real estate investment trust Highlands REIT. This facility is a prison formerly leased to GEO, which incarcerated Alaska state prisoners under contract, and was shut down in 2014. The Baptiste Migrant Detention Facility in La Junta, owned by the Baptiste Group, formerly a Boys’ Ranch facility last used in 2023. The Baptiste Group has operated other migrant children’s facilities, including one at Homestead, Florida. In 2021, Tennessee suspended the Baptiste Group’s license due to arrests of workers on charges of sexual battery and child abuse at a migrant children’s facility. The Colorado Springs Migrant Detention Facility in Colorado Springs, also owned by the Baptiste Group, is a former skilled nursing facility. Apex Site Services, a provider of temporary structures and modular buildings, proposed a soft-sided detention facility in Walsenberg, and BHPE LLC (Begini Howard Private Equity), a private equity firm, also submitted proposals. “Current immigration detention sites, including the GEO detention facility in Aurora, are already notorious for their inhumane conditions, including persistent medical negligence, inadequate nutrition, and routine rights violations,” said Tim Macdonald, legal director at ACLU of Colorado. “It is unconscionable to go on to expand this cruel, for-profit detention machine.” These FOIA documents follow several other similar disclosures released by ICE as the result of the ACLU’s litigation that detail proposals to expand immigration detention nationwide. In 2019, ACLU of Colorado released “Cashing in on Cruelty,” a report detailing death, abuse, and neglect at Aurora Contract Detention Facility, operated by the GEO Group, Inc. In 2024, the family of Melvin Ariel Calero Mendoza, a 39-year-old Nicaraguan asylum seeker, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the facility and its medical director. The lawsuit alleged the facility failed to diagnose and treat a blood clot in Mendoza’s leg. As the ACLU has previously documented, the federal government’s immigration detention system overwhelmingly relies on private prison corporations. The FOIA documents are available here. Related Content Press Release May 2026 Immigrants' Rights ACLU, Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging S.B. 4, Texas’ Deportation Scheme The legal team is seeking emergency relief to block several provisions of the law from taking effect May 15 AUSTIN, Texas — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block several provisions of Senate Bill 4 (88-4) from going into effect May 15. The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. S.B. 4 would allow local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The organizations are specifically seeking to prevent four different provisions of the law from going into effect, including: The reentry crime that would apply to anyone living in or traveling through Texas who reentered the United States without federal authorization — even if the person had federal permission to reenter or has since obtained lawful immigration status such as a green card. The power given to magistrates — who don’t know the intricacies of immigration law — to issue deportation orders. The crime of failing to comply with the magistrate’s removal orders. The requirement that magistrates continue a prosecution even when a person has a pending immigration case under federal law. Advocates have warned that the law will separate families and directly lead to racial profiling, subjecting thousands of Black and Brown Texans to the state prison system, which is rife with civil rights abuses. “S.B. 4 would transform our police and judges into immigration agents — threatening neighbors who have families here, who have lived here for years, even those who have legal status,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas. “Immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's arena, and no state has ever claimed the power Texas threatens to wield here. We are taking this back to court to defend our Texas communities.” The individual plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit seek to represent thousands of people across the state who may be held liable for violating the reentry provision of S.B. 4. One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident. A second plaintiff has been approved for a lawful U Visa, a step on the path toward citizenship, which she received after becoming the victim of a crime and helping law enforcement resolve the case. “Every court to have reached the merits of laws like S.B. 4 has found them to be unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is cruel and illegal, and we will keep fighting it until it is permanently struck down.” The new filing comes shortly after the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. Steven C. McCraw et al solely on the grounds that plaintiffs El Paso County, Las Americas, and American Gateways lacked standing — reversing its own three-judge panel decision from July 2025, which had found standing and held S.B. 4 to be preempted by federal law. This new lawsuit addresses the Fifth Circuit's procedural concerns. “Our fight against S.B. 4 isn’t over until justice wins,” said Kate Gibson Kumar, Beyond Borders staff attorney at Texas Civil Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is not only unconstitutional, but a vile law that uses our Texas resources to harm communities across our state. The Texas Civil Rights Project will keep fighting to protect Texas communities from the wrath of S.B. 4.” The en banc Fifth Circuit did not reach the constitutional questions at the heart of this case: whether S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally strips the federal government of its exclusive authority over immigration enforcement. The complaint is here. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is here. Court Case: LML v. Martin Aclu, Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging s.b. 4, texas’ deportation scheme . Explore Press Release. Texas May 2026 Immigrants' Rights LML v. Martin The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a class-action lawsuit on May 4, 2026, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block several provisions of Senate Bill 4 (88-4) from going into effect May 15. The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. Status: Ongoing Lml V. Martin. Explore Case. Press Release Apr 2026 Immigrants' Rights Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Proclamation Eliminating Asylum is Unlawful WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court today ruled that President Trump’s Day 1 proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border is unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the “212(f)” proclamation allowed the president to summarily deport asylum seekers who cross the border without allowing them to seek protection as required by Congress. The proclamation had falsely cited an “invasion” as the pretext for denying asylum protections for people who are at risk of persecution. The appeals court held that the government cannot subvert the laws Congress passed with extra-statutory procedures to block people from seeking asylum, which puts tens of thousands of lives at risk. The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which provide legal services to asylum seekers, and a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “This decision puts an end to the inhumane Trump policy of sending people, including families with little children, back to horrific danger without even a hearing,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal. “The court made clear that the president does not have the unilateral power to wipe away all of the asylum laws enacted by Congress.” “The circuit court reaffirmed our conviction that a president cannot unilaterally eliminate the right to seek asylum by executive order. We hope that the U.S. government remembers its obligation to consider applications for refugee protections and recommits to upholding the basic rights of people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Today marks a victory for the right of people to move freely across borders. It’s a moment to celebrate the connections we have with others, regardless of artificial boundaries,” said Daniel Hatoum, senior supervising attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Today's D.C. Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the president cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States. The right to seek asylum is firmly grounded in U.S. law and binding international obligations. This decision is a meaningful victory for our clients, who have been denied access to protection under policies deliberately designed to shut the door on people fleeing violence and persecution — policies that are inconsistent with those legal standards and basic due process. As organizational plaintiffs in this case, we fought this because in border communities like ours, we see the human consequences every day. Individuals and families arriving here are seeking lawful protection and the opportunity to live and work safely,” said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “Today’s decision is a win for every person who seeks safety and protection at our borders,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “The right to seek asylum in the U.S. is protected by law, and no unilateral executive action can nullify the laws and system Congress has created. We are relieved to see the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirm these principles. We call on the U.S. government to immediately move to uphold its obligation to people seeking protection and restart asylum processing at once.” “Since January of last year, the government has used the proclamation to implement a near-total shutdown of asylum processing, slamming the door on vulnerable families, children, and adults seeking refuge,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “As the court rightly concluded, U.S. law is clear: People seeking safety have a legal right to apply for asylum. The government cannot wield racist, baseless claims of an ‘invasion’ to override Congress and deprive them of that right.” “The D.C. Circuit's decision today confirms what we have long known to be true: U.S. immigration policy, as codified by law, does not grant the president unchecked, autocratic power to override Congress,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, co-chief executive officer at RAICES. “The rule of law is fundamental to our nation, and an independent judiciary remains essential to upholding this principle.” “This ruling confirms that the president cannot invent false pretenses to eliminate life-or-death rights for refugees seeking asylum,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “Thankfully, the courts still function in a fact-based world and rejected the president's false claims of invasion.” The ruling is here. Case background is here. Court Case: RAICES v. Noem Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Proclamation Eliminating Asylum Is Unlawful. Explore Press Release.